Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for
inappropriate discussions, as you did at
Peter Strzok. —
Coffee //
have a ☕️ //
beans //
13:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
You're a brand new account. Take the time to read and absorb Wikipedia policies about Verification and Neutral Point of View and don't accuse experienced editors of bias without specific edit-related concerns you would like to discuss. See
SPECIFICO talk 03:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
You have reinserted challenged content into the ASD article without addressing the central problem and engaging on the talk page. These are, as has repeatedly been stated in edit summaries, ad hominem attacks on the personnel and not criticisms or discussions of the organization and its activities. Please undo your reinsertion of the material now captioned "criticisms" and argue your case for inclusion on the talk page. I'll also note that "criticism sections" in general are discouraged on Wikipedia. We prefer to raise criticisms next to the facts to which they apply. In this case, of course, there are none because these are just personal smears. Please undo your re-insertion of this text. SPECIFICO talk 03:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
That article is subject to discretionary sanctions, and you are currently engaging in an edit war. If you don't quit adding that disputed content to the article, some admin is going block you from editing. Geogene ( talk) 05:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC) Specifically, you're in violation of the 1RR restriction. Unless you self revert immediately, I'll report you for a block. Geogene ( talk) 05:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, PZP-003. I know that you are aware of the Discretionary Sanctions on articles about American politics, because you were warned about them in
January. Articles under Discretionary Sanctions warn, at the top of the edit page, “You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article.
You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article.”
The reason for these limits - no more than one reversion of other people's edits in a 24-hour period, and no reinserting material that someone else has removed unless you take it to the talk page and get consensus - is to prevent
edit warring at these highly visible and controversial articles. But you violated these rules four times today. In
this edit] at the article
Trump–Russia dossier, you violated the Discretionary Sanctions by restoring material which had been challenged (by removing it). At the article
Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections you actually did it three times,
here,
here, and
here. This blatant violation of the Discretionary Sanctions calls for a block, and I am accordingly blocking you from editing for 24 hours. The purpose of this block, and this explanation, is to make you aware that the Discretionary Sanctions are real and are enforced. Any future violations will result in a longer block. --
MelanieN (
talk)
05:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Can you please explain why I have to wait 24 hours plus "take it to the talk page and get consensus" to re-insert the info if it has been reliably sourced and accurate? Is it because other editors here don't like the information I added. Why would they change their mind if I take it to the talk page?? They will probably use same bullying tactics they seem to be employing right now by undoing the edits. Why do they get to censor Wikipedia, I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be an open balanced friendly website where people can contribute to articles? Just for the record, everything I added is balanced, accurate, and taken from reliable sources. PZP-003 ( talk) 06:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes but the issue is what is there to discuss when everything is reliably sourced and accurate?
Your recent editing history at Alliance for Securing Democracy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek ( talk • contribs) 06:05, March 17, 2018 (UTC)
Why did you insert this in the ASD article? This is an unsourced opinion and in addition it misrepresents the nature of ASD. I cited the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines to you above and others have advised you to go slow until you understand how WP editing works. Articles that relate to recent events or controversial subjects are among the most difficult to edit constructively. I suggest you consider focusing on other topics of interest to you until you are more familiar with the Policies and Guidelines. SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC) (Content deleted by PZP-003 restored by me. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 23:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC))
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Cambridge Analytica. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - Mr X 🖋 15:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors, as you did on
Alliance for Securing Democracy. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
SPECIFICO talk 20:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
This is some friendly advice. You're about to get a very rough lesson in how Wikipedia American politics-related articles work. Do you see the various warnings that have been pasted on your page? The editors posting those warnings know that because you're a new account, they're technically required to warn you about the rules before they report you to the admins. You can see here that SPECIFICO is already talking about getting you banned (without pinging you, of course, which they're supposed to do when they discuss you elsewhere on Wikipedia).
I know it's frustrating to see people dismissing every source they don't like as " fringe," but if you respond angrily or by calling their neutrality into question, they will use that as a reason to get you blocked, and they will likely be successful. Blocks are escalating, so after your 24-hour block, they'll be arguing for a much longer block. Next time, that block will be used as an argument for a third, longer block, and so on. It doesn't matter if they attack you first. Basically, you're not on even terrain, and if you really care about contributing to Wikipedia, it's important not to let yourself get dragged into the personal fights, which will end with you (but not your more experienced opponents) being blocked.
You have to take the whole spectacle with a bit of detached humor. You can argue your position, but don't overdo it, don't attack other people, and try to ignore it when they attack you. You should to be aware that there are already several people, as you can see above, who are eager to get you banned, and who will almost certainly go to WP:ANI or WP:AE within the next few days. As I said earlier, Wikipedia is reliable for some things, but not for controversial current events. You've seen the level of quality of the talk-page discussions that determine what ends up in these articles. It is what it is. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 21:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Thucydides411 has "advised" that you adopt their battleground view of and approach to Wikipedia editing. They have presented it as fact rather than their opinion, which might tell you something. Probably you will adopt their view or not depending on how you approach real life, so I won't spend a lot of time trying to sway you to the alternative view. Just be aware that the alternative view exists, that there are plenty of experienced editors who subscribe to it, and that you have a choice like any other editor. ― Mandruss ☎ 21:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Alliance for Securing Democracy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Specifico
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Volunteer Marek (
talk)
01:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors, as you did on
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Calling someone a "liar" is a personal attack, and guy, I provided the links, all of the them: THEY'RE LITERALLY THE SAME. Identical. Do that again and I'll see that you're blocked.
Calton |
Talk
06:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to be posting here again but I have to address your edit summary here. You state:
" VolunteerMarek made false claim that I violated 1RR discretionary sanctions which is clearly a lie. I only restored the addition ONCE, I'm trying to obey the rules on WP please stop"
No. This is false. I did NOT claim that you violated 1RR. I explicitly claimed that you violated the "consensus required - don't restore challenged material" discretionary sanction. That is the second paragraph in my comment. So no, I didn't "lie" and you really need to cut that kind of commentary out unless you can back it up.
If you really are "trying to obey the rules on WP" then you will self-revert this. Thanks Volunteer Marek ( talk) 13:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Stop smearing my good faith editing by using McCarthyite tactics e.g. "you make tweaks and word changes which support the Putin/Trump narrative". I'm not supporting any "narrative". My edits are NPOV using accepted RS...just trying to contribute to WP and add balance to articles, that's all. There seems to be a blatant and clear political agenda certain users have (specifically BullRangifer, VolunteerMarek, Specifico, but there are others) where any edits (including NPOV and RS content) that doesn't fit into their anti-Trump narrative it will be immediately removed (these users often remove content for dubious reasons...just check their edit histories and also their comments on numerous talk pages).
You stated "your editing is clearly POV driven and not informed by RS, but rather by fringe and unreliable sources" Please show me one "fringe" or "unreliable" source that I have used. Users like you seem to think any RS that isn't CNN or WaPo or NYTimes, etc, isn't really RS. I don't understand why these people are allowed to edit and censor WP when it should be pretty clear to other users/admins what's going on.
Edit warriors get blocked and banned, even when they are right. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 15:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC) @ PZP-003:
He gives the same angry lecture to everyone apparently. Factchecker_atyourservice 04:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
LOL....I'm sure BullRangifer must be a nice person in real life. PZP-003 ( talk) 16:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This account has been
blocked indefinitely because
CheckUser evidence confirms that the account's owner has
abusively used multiple accounts.
(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets · sockpuppet investigations casepage) | ![]() |
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for
inappropriate discussions, as you did at
Peter Strzok. —
Coffee //
have a ☕️ //
beans //
13:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
You're a brand new account. Take the time to read and absorb Wikipedia policies about Verification and Neutral Point of View and don't accuse experienced editors of bias without specific edit-related concerns you would like to discuss. See
SPECIFICO talk 03:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
You have reinserted challenged content into the ASD article without addressing the central problem and engaging on the talk page. These are, as has repeatedly been stated in edit summaries, ad hominem attacks on the personnel and not criticisms or discussions of the organization and its activities. Please undo your reinsertion of the material now captioned "criticisms" and argue your case for inclusion on the talk page. I'll also note that "criticism sections" in general are discouraged on Wikipedia. We prefer to raise criticisms next to the facts to which they apply. In this case, of course, there are none because these are just personal smears. Please undo your re-insertion of this text. SPECIFICO talk 03:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
That article is subject to discretionary sanctions, and you are currently engaging in an edit war. If you don't quit adding that disputed content to the article, some admin is going block you from editing. Geogene ( talk) 05:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC) Specifically, you're in violation of the 1RR restriction. Unless you self revert immediately, I'll report you for a block. Geogene ( talk) 05:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, PZP-003. I know that you are aware of the Discretionary Sanctions on articles about American politics, because you were warned about them in
January. Articles under Discretionary Sanctions warn, at the top of the edit page, “You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article.
You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article.”
The reason for these limits - no more than one reversion of other people's edits in a 24-hour period, and no reinserting material that someone else has removed unless you take it to the talk page and get consensus - is to prevent
edit warring at these highly visible and controversial articles. But you violated these rules four times today. In
this edit] at the article
Trump–Russia dossier, you violated the Discretionary Sanctions by restoring material which had been challenged (by removing it). At the article
Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections you actually did it three times,
here,
here, and
here. This blatant violation of the Discretionary Sanctions calls for a block, and I am accordingly blocking you from editing for 24 hours. The purpose of this block, and this explanation, is to make you aware that the Discretionary Sanctions are real and are enforced. Any future violations will result in a longer block. --
MelanieN (
talk)
05:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Can you please explain why I have to wait 24 hours plus "take it to the talk page and get consensus" to re-insert the info if it has been reliably sourced and accurate? Is it because other editors here don't like the information I added. Why would they change their mind if I take it to the talk page?? They will probably use same bullying tactics they seem to be employing right now by undoing the edits. Why do they get to censor Wikipedia, I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be an open balanced friendly website where people can contribute to articles? Just for the record, everything I added is balanced, accurate, and taken from reliable sources. PZP-003 ( talk) 06:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes but the issue is what is there to discuss when everything is reliably sourced and accurate?
Your recent editing history at Alliance for Securing Democracy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek ( talk • contribs) 06:05, March 17, 2018 (UTC)
Why did you insert this in the ASD article? This is an unsourced opinion and in addition it misrepresents the nature of ASD. I cited the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines to you above and others have advised you to go slow until you understand how WP editing works. Articles that relate to recent events or controversial subjects are among the most difficult to edit constructively. I suggest you consider focusing on other topics of interest to you until you are more familiar with the Policies and Guidelines. SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC) (Content deleted by PZP-003 restored by me. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 23:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC))
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Cambridge Analytica. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - Mr X 🖋 15:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors, as you did on
Alliance for Securing Democracy. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
SPECIFICO talk 20:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
This is some friendly advice. You're about to get a very rough lesson in how Wikipedia American politics-related articles work. Do you see the various warnings that have been pasted on your page? The editors posting those warnings know that because you're a new account, they're technically required to warn you about the rules before they report you to the admins. You can see here that SPECIFICO is already talking about getting you banned (without pinging you, of course, which they're supposed to do when they discuss you elsewhere on Wikipedia).
I know it's frustrating to see people dismissing every source they don't like as " fringe," but if you respond angrily or by calling their neutrality into question, they will use that as a reason to get you blocked, and they will likely be successful. Blocks are escalating, so after your 24-hour block, they'll be arguing for a much longer block. Next time, that block will be used as an argument for a third, longer block, and so on. It doesn't matter if they attack you first. Basically, you're not on even terrain, and if you really care about contributing to Wikipedia, it's important not to let yourself get dragged into the personal fights, which will end with you (but not your more experienced opponents) being blocked.
You have to take the whole spectacle with a bit of detached humor. You can argue your position, but don't overdo it, don't attack other people, and try to ignore it when they attack you. You should to be aware that there are already several people, as you can see above, who are eager to get you banned, and who will almost certainly go to WP:ANI or WP:AE within the next few days. As I said earlier, Wikipedia is reliable for some things, but not for controversial current events. You've seen the level of quality of the talk-page discussions that determine what ends up in these articles. It is what it is. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 21:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Thucydides411 has "advised" that you adopt their battleground view of and approach to Wikipedia editing. They have presented it as fact rather than their opinion, which might tell you something. Probably you will adopt their view or not depending on how you approach real life, so I won't spend a lot of time trying to sway you to the alternative view. Just be aware that the alternative view exists, that there are plenty of experienced editors who subscribe to it, and that you have a choice like any other editor. ― Mandruss ☎ 21:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Alliance for Securing Democracy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Specifico
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Volunteer Marek (
talk)
01:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors, as you did on
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Calling someone a "liar" is a personal attack, and guy, I provided the links, all of the them: THEY'RE LITERALLY THE SAME. Identical. Do that again and I'll see that you're blocked.
Calton |
Talk
06:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to be posting here again but I have to address your edit summary here. You state:
" VolunteerMarek made false claim that I violated 1RR discretionary sanctions which is clearly a lie. I only restored the addition ONCE, I'm trying to obey the rules on WP please stop"
No. This is false. I did NOT claim that you violated 1RR. I explicitly claimed that you violated the "consensus required - don't restore challenged material" discretionary sanction. That is the second paragraph in my comment. So no, I didn't "lie" and you really need to cut that kind of commentary out unless you can back it up.
If you really are "trying to obey the rules on WP" then you will self-revert this. Thanks Volunteer Marek ( talk) 13:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Stop smearing my good faith editing by using McCarthyite tactics e.g. "you make tweaks and word changes which support the Putin/Trump narrative". I'm not supporting any "narrative". My edits are NPOV using accepted RS...just trying to contribute to WP and add balance to articles, that's all. There seems to be a blatant and clear political agenda certain users have (specifically BullRangifer, VolunteerMarek, Specifico, but there are others) where any edits (including NPOV and RS content) that doesn't fit into their anti-Trump narrative it will be immediately removed (these users often remove content for dubious reasons...just check their edit histories and also their comments on numerous talk pages).
You stated "your editing is clearly POV driven and not informed by RS, but rather by fringe and unreliable sources" Please show me one "fringe" or "unreliable" source that I have used. Users like you seem to think any RS that isn't CNN or WaPo or NYTimes, etc, isn't really RS. I don't understand why these people are allowed to edit and censor WP when it should be pretty clear to other users/admins what's going on.
Edit warriors get blocked and banned, even when they are right. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 15:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC) @ PZP-003:
He gives the same angry lecture to everyone apparently. Factchecker_atyourservice 04:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
LOL....I'm sure BullRangifer must be a nice person in real life. PZP-003 ( talk) 16:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This account has been
blocked indefinitely because
CheckUser evidence confirms that the account's owner has
abusively used multiple accounts.
(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets · sockpuppet investigations casepage) | ![]() |